Save The Earth Gravity Battery

The world is running out of fossil fuels. This leads to migration of brown people to our pure Aryan lands. This gravity battery could save us.

Prove I'm wrong, pro tip: You can't.
gravitybattery.info/

Other urls found in this thread:

physics.stackexchange.com/questions/226156/why-dont-they-use-springs-as-an-energy-source-for-cell-phones
youtube.com/watch?v=lqvJ8LuULyI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
twitter.com/AnonBabble

So it's coiled springs. Just like in sci-fi book The Windup Girl.

I didn't think about that.

Never thought about it, but...

>How is this better and more space efficient than a power pack?

>How does it need less maintenance than a power pack?

>The weights can't be falling for hours Can the supply electricity for more than an hour?

>Not space efficient

>Uglier than a power pack

Would be cool, but just as a project, not something fully functional.

Oops, repeated space efficiency issues.

Oh cool. It's the Mako Reactor from FF7. Thanks Japan

It the battery system was actually economical it would be better used in conjunction with a nuclear power plant, or a conventional coal plant.

However while the world is running out of cheap fossil fuels we have more nuclear potential than humanity could ever hope to use.

Where does the energy come from to lift the weights back to their original position?

I think solar energy is used to pull them back up

The energy it needs to use to lift the weights basically goes to waste. Fucking stupid idea.

It's absolutely ridiculous. Gravitation potential formula: E = mgh. For 1 tonne weight lifted 10m(~33 feet) it will be: 1000*9.8*10=98000J
That's only PATHETIC 27wh or half-dead laptop battery.

How to stop vandals, terrorists and nignogs from ruining it?

its true its more efficient than chemical battery storage and less complex than flywheel or water systems

>How is this better and more space efficient than a power pack?
Better because it doesn't require mining rare elements from sensitive landscapes. Power storage is the reason solar and wind energy aren't used more, so obviously storage is a problem.

>How does it need less maintenance than a power pack?
Chemical batteries need to be replaced every decade or so. OPs pic would really only need minor servicing.

>The weights can't be falling for hours Can the supply electricity for more than an hour?
The weights in my grandfather clock fall for a week. Fifteen pounds falling two feet over a week is enough power to run the large clock.

>Not space efficient
Neither is your mom but we'll let that go.

>Uglier than a power pack
Since when does a power plant have to be aesthetic?

And by "power pack" I assume you mean the Tesla one, which is really just a chemical battery bank with a built in inverter. Not really new technology.

Way as well just keep fracking because this shit is going to cause earthquakes too.

How about all the holes you'd have to drill?
Still not space efficient.

Looks nice but i'm not really good at physics.
ECE, cost of drilling such a hole?

> ITT Ignorance

what the fuck are you talking about it gets stored in the potential energy of the weight retard
thats why there are 4 weights and they will probably be more than 1 ton each

Look up Lithium-titanate Batteries. They have around 30000 life cycles. Also, for capacity equivalent to 7kwh Tesla PowerWall you'll need ~~260 tons of weights lifted 10m(33 feet). That's impractical.

too complex for a home system

Why not use that solar power instead?

It will take years to recoup the energy spent on drilling those holes.

That would be too logical.

look at

Just what I thought. Yea, it's creative, but that's all.

I foresee a lot of energy being wasted in this system just from inefficient mechanisms bringing it up and down. Not only that it looks extremely costly to make and even more to maintain. Interesting idea but it looks like it will bring more problems than it will solve.

basic physics dictates it will take more energy to pull up the weights than they will generate falling.

>Solar energy is free

No.

>spring-power

Oh boy, let me guess, another retard who didn't even take physics 101 (but hey, at least the graphic looks cool and green and eco-friendly)

physics.stackexchange.com/questions/226156/why-dont-they-use-springs-as-an-energy-source-for-cell-phones

tl;dr: it's pretty much the least efficient form of power storage there is.

We just need to find a material so massive that a bucketfull would weigh 260 tons, then you could use your well that's already dug.

>Solar panel array

That's where I stopped.

Chemical batteries and inverters aren't nearly 100% efficient either.
The point is that we can't effectively use solar and wind power if we can't effectively store it.

10 liter bucket (2.6 gallon in burger units) = 0.01 cubic meter = 10000 cubic centimeter
260 tons = 260000000 gram

260000000/10000 = density of 26000g/cm^3

>Osmium is the densest naturally occurring element, with a density of 22.59 g/cm^3

>gravity battery
Retarded beyond redemption.

For one thing - getting weight up to top would require significantly more energy than it would be possible to regenerate from weights going down.
Then there is another significant energy loss due to mechanical nature of it (gears, cable tension, friction). And the resulting complex system will require a lot of maintenance.

And points made in that picture are also too stupid
>relatively cheap
Compared to what?
>environmentally lovely
Might be, depending on how it's actually built
>stores energy indefinitely
Show me a mechanical system that does not wear over time
>Stores large amounts of energy
Even in same picture it is written "no actual measurements have been taken, and no tests have been done". So even claiming something as bold as this already requires some sort of data.
>maximum output regardless of charge level
Obviously since it's mechanical generator. But even so it is possible to argue about gravity change with depth
>available instantly
There will be time to switch between input and output
>maintenance free
It's a mechanical system, what kind of retard wrote this?
>100% safe
>small space and landscape footprint
They are clearly not familiar what amount of energy average household consumes and what equipment it would take to generate that energy

>The world is running out of fossil fuels
No it isn't you lying pice of shit

>being this dense
Ironic

What's the burn rate?

>pumping into the base of the high-level reservoir

Why would you do this and have to fight against the reservoir instead of pumping it onto the surface?

there is no difference
youtube.com/watch?v=lqvJ8LuULyI

Oil is a renewable resource, research abiotic oil. The price is the proof.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
Just do this shit like normal people.

>hur dur all reserves are equally easy to access
oil being "technically recoverable" is not the same as oil being cost competitive. most of the remaining reserves (deep ocean, oil shale, and oil sands) are impossible to actually get to without oil prices being ridiculously high. unfortunately, the economy has proven that it can't support high oil prices without killing demand as consumers switch to more efficient vehicles or alternative power sources.

>hur dur all reserves are equally easy to access
oil being "technically recoverable" is not the same as oil being cost competitive. most of the remaining reserves (deep ocean, oil shale, and oil sands) are impossible to actually get to without oil prices being ridiculously high. unfortunately, the economy has proven that it can't support high oil prices without killing demand as consumers change their driving habits or switch to more efficient vehicles or alternative power sources.

Pretty much every year, the proven reserves have increased net of consumption. The only exception was 2015 when exploration slowed down as a response to lower oil prices.